tv Your Money CNN February 24, 2013 3:00pm-4:00pm EST
21st century. her inspiration for creativity comes from unlikely places and results in innovative, fun and surprising fashion and that's what earns her spot on "the next list." thanks to cnn's zoraida sambolin. i'm dr. sanjay gupta. thanks for watching, see you next week. an economy poised to soar is now under attack from its own government. i'm ali velshi, this is "your money," your political leaders are punishing themselves for gross inaction and they're doing it the only way they know how, by targeting you. government spending cuts take effect march 1st. what washington has been calling the sequester. a stupid name for a stupid thing. >> these cuts are not smart. they are not fair. they will hurt our economy. they will add hundreds of thousands of americans to the unemployment rolls. this is not an abstraction, people will lose their jobs. >> you've heard the big numbers, $1.2 trillion in cuts over ten
years. 85 billion this year. that's 13% cuts to defense, 9% to everything else. >> we're weeks away from the president's sequester. and the president laid out no plan. to eliminate the sequester in a harmful cuts that will come as a result of it. >> the forced budget cuts were created during the 2011 debt ceiling debacle. passed by congress and signed by the white house, a worst-case scenario that would be so bad it would force lawmakers to make a deal. now it's become a poison pill that the nation may have to swallow, beginning march 1st. and if it happens, 70,000 children kicked off head start programs, putting more than 14,000 teachers and staff jobs at risk. fewer inspections for things like horsemeat in your burgers. cuts to mental health problems mean almost 400,000 seriously mentally ill people will go
untreated. homeland security draw downs would result in longer wait times at airports and scaled-back cybersecurity would mean more vult to attacks from hackers in china and at home, threatening our infrastructure. furloughs and layoffs would affect more than 800 workers in the defense industry at the same time that north korea is testing a nuclear bomb. cuts at the irs would mean fewer tax return reviews and longer waits to get refunds. and more than 100,000 people would be thrown out of emergency housing and onto the streets. one way or another, everyone is going to feel this. while washington continues to play the blame game. >> the bottom line is very simple -- the republicans have proposed devastating cuts. >> washington democrats have gotten used to republicans bailing them out of their own lack of responsibility. >> now that we're clear at what is at stake, let's figure out whether this is really going to happen. john king is cnn's chief
national correspondent. what is the likelihood of this sequester, these forced budget cuts going into effect starting friday? >> there's no serious negotiations, so at the moment. it looks like they will go in. you heard the president, he wants a bigger deal to have a deficit reduction, a long-term plan. he said if we can't get that by march 1st, we should do something temporary so the cuts don't take effect. but look there are some democrats who politically, including people in the white house, we see the president making these public appeals. but his own people say privately they think in the short-term, they have the political upper hand and they think it would help them, it would hurt the republican party's image, it would hurt the republican party heading into the 2014 cycle to have this happen. so both sides are playing some short-term political calculations. republicans think we have tried to get cuts out of the president, we gave him tax increases and our only leverage is to get these cuts. they also think, ali that some
of the predictions are more sky is falling rhetoric and that federal managers will be forced to make tough choices and they won't have the most sensitive services cut, but they'll cut other things. at the moment there are no serious negotiations to have some sort of a temporary greesht. >> jean tahadi you've written an article that you describe that the cuts are bad policy and you give three specific reasons why. tell me about them. >> it's not the magnitude of the cuts that's a problem. it's the fact that they're indiscriminate. the good will be cut with the bad, the efficient programs, the essential services, will be cut in equal measure with those things that are bloated programs, duplicative that have lazy workers. saying they're treated evenly. they address the smallest part of the budget. they address discretionary spending primarily. there's a little bit of mandatory spending but it's basically a third of the budget
and the third has been already cut pretty much a lot over the next decade, not that it can't be cut more but the manner in which it's being cut is ridiculous. and even though it's going to reduce deficits, it does nothing to reduce our debt problem. because the debt problem is more in the mandatory piece of the budget and most of that is protected. >> pled care and social security. >> it's not that the programs are problematic, it's because we're getting so old, so fast and there's so many of us. health care costs are still growing too fast for us to afford them. and cover all the people we've promised to cover to the extent we've promised to cover them. >> so john, let's get to the bottom of this. you mentioned there are people who say that there's a sky is falling scenario and frankly, i laid out a pretty serious scenario at the top of the show about what could happen. as a possibility some of those things could not happen. a lot of business people say, if i had a business and i was told i had to cut 10% across the board, i'd find a way to do it. the fact is we're not having a discussion about a more
effective way to do it. >> no, we're not, and again, this is allegedly part of an attempt to get a big deficit reduction grand bargain. they haven't been able to get the grand bargain. they keep doing it in tiny little pieces, sometimes very petty, partisan, showdown. but the biggest issue to get a budget deficit grand bargain is to trust deficit. there's a dysfunctional relationship between a democratic president and the republican speaker of the house. the speaker of the who is has his own internal problems in the republican party. what the president is asking republicans is to twice in six weeks agree to tax increases. that is not going to happen. >> and so their failure to deal with this six months ago, a year ago, 18 months ago. two years ago, and to build trust in the relationship along the way, is why we have this moment of truth right now. and i think most americans, who have had to make their own tough choices the past several years. look at washington and say, why do i even have to ask myself the question, who's telling the truth. how tough will the cuts be.
this is the most basic job they're elected to do and they can't do it. >> jean tehadi is a senior writer for cnn money. read her writing, it's great. and jon king is the cnn chief national correspondent. coming up, forced spending cuts start on friday. time vuning out to make a deal. i'll do my best monty hall impression and show you what's behind doors number one, two, and three and every week i ask you to follow me on facebook. in my desperation for followers i've turned to the original facebook friend. mark zuckerberg, my conversation with him later in the show. but they're here. yes. are you...? there? yes. no. are you them? i'm me. but those rates are for... them. so them are here. yes! you want to run through it again? no, i'm good. you got it? yes. rates for us and them -- now that's progressive.
transit fares! as in the 37 billion transit fares we help collect each year. no? oh, right. you're thinking of the 1.6 million daily customer care interactions xerox handles. or the 900 million health insurance claims we process. so, it's no surprise to you that companies depend on today's xerox for services that simplify how work gets done. which is...pretty much what we've always stood for. with xerox, you're ready for real business. i don't want to you think i'm that old, but you remember "let's make a deal"? ♪ >> it's time for "let's make a
deal". >> a game show is what we've got going in washington these days when it comes to the fight over spending cuts. although frankly, it looks more like let's not make a deal. allow me to channel monty hall for a moment. i'm going to show you what's behind doors number one, two and three. first, door number one, we've got a forced spending cuts. a stupid thing known in washington by its stupid name, the sequester. this is $85 billion in cuts over the next seven months they take effect friday. march 1st, unless our elected leaders come up with a plan to replace them. automatic spending cuts between 9% and 13% to every federal agency, including defense. let's go to the next one. door number two. behind door number two is the democratic alternative proposal. senate democrats have offered to replace those forced spending cuts, the sequester, i'll tell you up front this is another waste of time with zero chance of passing. they're calling for $55 billion in spending cuts, $55 billion in new revenue. most of that new revenue would
come from a tax on millionaires. the so-called buffett rule. didn't we just impose tax hikes on the richest americans? i'm sure you all know how easy that was to get. we already drank from that trough. the democrats by the way would delay any spending cuts until 2014. so we can have this fight all over again at the end of the year and not actually figure out an answer to it. finally, a look behind door number three, we've got simpson-bowles version 2.0. an updated plan, a new plan by the team that was headed by democratic businessman, erskine bowles and allen simpson who chaired president obama's bipartisan fiscal commission in 2010. the plan that got thrown under the bus. the new plan highlights cuts to the deficit of $2.4 trillion over the next decade. it gets there by raising $600 billion in new tax revenue. cutting $600 billion from medicare and medicaid. and $1.2 trillion over ten
years, in additional spending cuts. diane swonk is the chief economist at. michael tanner is a senior fellow at the cato institute. welcome to all of you. michael, let me start with you, you say we should not fear doorm number one. the budget cuts, the sequester, why? >> well let's remember first of all, these are cuts only in the washington sense that any reduction from future planned increases in spending is a cut. the reality is, even if the sequester goes into effect, the federal government will spend more every year by 2022, it will spend $2 trillion more than it is spending today. we're talking about cuts that are 2.4% of total federal spending. if the federal government can't cut three cents out of every
dollar without throwing us into the dark ages, then clearly we're doing something wrong. >> all right. alice riflen, simpson-bowles, i mentioned they're at it again. listen to this. >> to get this done we're going to have to, this was clear at the end of last year, we're going to have to push both sides out of their comfort zone. the republicans are going to have to accept more revenue. the democrats are going to have to accept more cuts and our health care spending, that's the only way we can reach a compromise that really makes sense and solves our long-term deficit problem. >> alice, that's erskine bowles, he proposes $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction, versus the $1.5 trillion that the president is looking for. it requires tax increases. does the new plan have any chance of going anywhere? >> well what has a chance of going somewhere if the president and the congress can get back together, is some version of a grand bargain and a grand bargain means we have to slow
the growth of the entitlements, especially medicare and medicaid. we have to put social security back on a firm foundation and we have to reform our tax code so it raises some more revenue. that's what erskine bowles and alan simpson are saying. it's what pete dominici and i said in our report. it's what the president and speaker boehner were working on and came very close to. we need to do that. and stop fooling around with this counterproductive thing called the sequester. which is bad macropolicy. it would reduce employment when we don't want to. and it is a stupid, dumb, what can i say, way to cut near-term spending across the board, program by program, whether it's good or not. >> diane, let's predind we live in a world where we have the three doors that i showed you. if you could choose behind door number one, two, or three, which
one makes the most sense to an economist? >> oh, come on, it's easy. door number three. i used to watch let's make a deal and i would take door number three on this one, knowing what's behind it. it does show my age as well. i agree with alice, alice is the queen of budgets here, she really is the one who is incredible on this. and i think it's really important to understand that this is a stupid way to cut budgets, this is dumb and we shouldn't be playing baseball with the ball being the u.s. economy and most of us living in that sphere, political baseball on this level. this is just again a repeated mistake of how dysfunctional our government is rather than functional. and going towards door number three, would not only show our government is functional, but show that the world that we can lead in this arena rather than lag. >> so michael, you like door number one, the sequester. the forced budget cuts, alice and diane prefer door number three, which is simpson-bowles
version 2.0. what if i told you there's another possibility? a mystery door number four. what might that look like? we'll look at it when we come back. why turbo? trust us. it's just better to be in front. the sonata turbo. from hyundai. to fly home for the big family reunion. you must be garth's father? hello. mother. mother! traveling is easy with the venture card because you can fly any airline anytime. two words. double miles! this guy can act. wanna play dodge rock? oh, you guys! and with double miles you can actually use, you never miss the fun.
beard growing contest and go! ♪ i win! what's in your wallet? when she's happy, she writes about bunnies. when she's sad, she writes about goblins. [ balloon pops, goblin growling ] she wrote a lot about goblins after getting burned in the market. but she found someone to talk to and gained the confidence to start investing again. ♪ and that's what you call a storybook ending. it's not rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade. then you're going to love this. right now they're only $14.95! wow-a grt deal just got a whole lot better. hurry. $14.95 won't last.
together, commission put together by the president. that did things slightly differently than simpson-bowles, are there alternatives, you said aversion of simpson-bowles, to door number four that could be palatable to both sides, that might actually get done? >> well i was on simpson-bowles. so i think that's basically the right thing. but the point is, you need to do two things at once. what is driving federal spending are as look ahead, are the increases in medicare and medicaid and social security. that's because we're getting d older and medical care costs are rising faster than the economy can grow. so we need to slow the growth of those benefits programs. but we can't do it all on the benefit sides, we can't absorb that many older people and their health care without some tax increases. fortunately we could reform the tax code. make it fairer and simpler, which is what simpson-bowles
proposed. and still raise some more revenues. so i think door number four is any version of the grand bargain. simpson-bowles is a good one. it isn't the only way you can do this. but the two essential elements are the tax reform and the entitlement reform. >> let me ask you about that, though. alice rivlin has been in government. she knows how to run budgets, she knows all of these things and she's still talking about a grand bargain. the reality is, we heard about that grand bargain. we heard it talked about in 2011 for the budget. we heard it again during the fiscal cliff drama a couple of months ago. has that opportunity come and gone? >> well the problem with these grand bargains is they always involve tax increases today and promises that some day way off in the future we'll cut spending. the reality is of course that tax cuts are immediate and tax hikes are immediate and permanent and the spending cuts
are ephemeral and way off in the future. >> let me stop you. now we're talking, this is like the criticism of stimulus, right? the fact that it didn't work the way some people wanted it to work doesn't mean that in concept it can't work. why can't we have a grand bargain that actually says tax cuts today are not increases today, but they come in over five years or ten years. why couldn't we just actually make a big deal rather than just not trust that we'll never be able to make a deal. >> we could have a unicorn hunt, too. the reality is that nobody ever wants to cut spending, we have not cut spending. the fact is that for all the president talks about a trillion and a half of spending cuts he's made, we're spending more this year than we did in the first budget. the reality is that spending is going up. >> allison, unicorn hunt or not? >> it's not. i'm for the unicorn, because i think we can do it. it isn't a question of doing something now or something later. you have to change the law on
both the entitlements and the tax code and we tend to observe laws. for example, when we change the social security law in 1983, and raised the retirement age, we abided by it. nobody noticed, really, the retirement age is still going up in accordance with the 1983 law. it will happen. >> diane? >> i have to agree withals, i'm on alice's side, reforms to the tax code are critical in increasing the efficiency of the u.s. economy as well. the torth tax code is a mess, business round table showed up at the white house and supported tax reforms. so there clearly is bipartisan support in that arena. we know the tax code doesn't work. and we know that the bulk of the problem is entitlements and frankly why can't we get into some things eating around the edges, even. even more marginally in the near-term like slowing down the pace of social security growth or means testing. if wealthy people don't need social security, they don't get
it. these are the things that are pragmatic approaches that don't hurt the economy up front. we don't want to add too much pain we've seen when that means in europe. we want to avoid the european experience and we actually do have a little bit of time but there's no, there's no time like the present to make the plans for the future. >> michael you're outnumbered, but i hope that won't stop you and coming and playing "let's make a deal" on "your money," michael tanner, and diane swonk and alice riflen is a former debt commission member and a senior fellow at the brookician institution. coming up, president obama hasn't submitted a new budget, so congress will have to vote on another resolution to continue existing budget or face a government shutdown at the end of march. can't get anything done in washington. and mark zuckerberg is worth $12 billion, but some questions are even too big for him. >> you're asking questions that are a bit above my pay grade, i think. >> after building the world's
biggest social network. facebook's founder has a new quest. multi-car, paid in full -- a most fulsome bounty indeed, lord jamie. thou cometh and we thy saveth! what are you doing? we doth offer so many discounts, we have some to spare. oh, you have any of those homeowners discounts? here we go. thank you. he took my shield, my lady. these are troubling times in the kingdom. more discounts than we knoweth what to do with.
we've been talking about the forced spending cuts, the sequester. there's a good reason we're talking about it the sequester deadline, the forced budget cuts go into effect starting friday. a more important deadline may be on march 27th. when the so-called continuing resolution on the latest federal budget expires. if congress doesn't vote for another continuing resolution, the u.s. government could shut down. in a perfect world, the federal budget is laid out in february every year by the president. should be passed by mid april every year. but congress has gone close to four years without agreeing to a new budget. the last full budget was passed in april of 2009. under normal circumstances the president submits the annual budget proposal to congress in february for the fiscal year that starts on october 1st. based 0en that, a budget resolution is written. deliberations and hearings take
place, amendments are made, the complete budget is supposed to be passed by april the 15th. but these are not normal times. when congress doesn't pass a budget resolution, the previous year's resolution stays in effect. you need a so-called continuing resolution approved to do that. that continues funding for federal agencies at their existing levels. now that way the government doesn't need to shut down just because you're elected officials won't agree on new annual budget. there have been some political stunts to make it seem like budgets were being presented to kk and failing in the past few years. those budgets were put forward for an up or down vote without amendments, that's not how budgets gets passed in governments or business, it never has been, it never will be. there's supposed to be disagreement and back and forth between the sides, we've taken all of that too far. we've become too uncompromising, both sides have given up on trying to do it the right way. it doesn't matter because
president obama delayed submitting a new budget proposal to congress this month by blaming the fiscal cliff bat until december for putting his team behind schedule that means that congress has to choose to vote to extend another continuing resolution before march 27th, or we face a government shutdown. now last week i talked to senator johnny isaacson, a republican from georgia on this show. he said a government shutdown would be a bad idea. >> shutting the government down is bad idea. defending the country's important and making sure social security checks are delivered is important. but it's a better idea to run the country like it's supposed to be run. do your responsibility. appropriate money, make cuts where you you have to. if you have to change the tax code, change the tax code. but do it in the context of the macro sense, not the micro. >> can't agree more, joining me are david gergen. cnn political analyst and professor of public service and the director of the center of public leadership at the harvard kennedy school and ron brownstein, executive director at the national journal magazine
in washington. gentlemen, good to see you. ron, republicans could push president obama to accept further budget cuts by threatening to shut down the government. we've heard one leading republican senator, johnny isaacson, you've heard him say it's a very bad idea. could we be headed down the road to a shutdown? >> i think we are probably not heading down in that direction, there's republicans who have talked about that. but the could be census of sentiment seems to be moving on a different path now. i think what republicans are looking at more now is taking the sequester cuts and then codifying them as you note a continuing resolution to extend the government funding through the rest of the year and in effect daring the democrats to shut down the government by refusing to accept those large cuts in both discretionary and defense spending. >> david, you have served four u.s. presidents, including three republicans, richard nixon, gerald ford and ronald reagan. as well as an 18-month stint as counselor to democratic president bill clinton.
you left the clinton administration before his showdown with republicans in congress that led to the last government shutdown in 1995-1996 when the public largely blamed then speaker newt gingrich and the republicans for that fiasco. let's assume republicans don't want a repeat of that this time around. is just the threat of the shutdown enough to weigh on the calculations made by both sides? >> it may well be that the combination of the sequester and the continuing resolution of the shutdown will force people back to the table. i think there's a good possibility of that. i agree with ron brownstein that we're very unlikely to have a shutdown. but i would caution this ali, we've had 17 shutdowns since 1976. they're usually quite brief. they're blips on the screen. the one we had that you're recalling, of '95-96. a much more serious shutdown, it was a show zwroun between
president clinton and newt gingrich. and the president won. but what was very important about that was it cleared the air. the shutdown and the collapse on the republican side led to an era of bipartisanship that we really got some things done. president clinton has been the first to say that so shutdowns can have a cleansing effect. the hope is that the combination of sequester and the prospect of a shutdown would have a cleansing effect here now. nothing else so far has, maybe this will. >> david and ron, thanks so much for joining us. i suspect i'll be seeing a lot more of you in the coming week. imagine if you don't think of the taxes that you pay as a waste but rather as ron said, as an investment forfrom which you get a return? far from being a burden on your proverbial grandchildren, the taxes you pay could end up making them money. i'll put my theory to the test with fareed zakaria, next. if there was a pill to help protect your eye health as you age... would you take it? well, there is.
[ male announcer ] it's called ocuvite. a vitamin totally dedicated to your eyes, from the eye care experts at bausch + lomb. as you age, eyes can lose vital nutrients. ocuvite helps replenish key eye nutrients. ocuvite has a unique formula not found in your multivitamin to help protect your eye health. now that's a pill worth taking. [ male announcer ] ocuvite. help protect your eye health. [ male announcer ] ocuvite. it's not what you think. it's a phoenix with 4 wheels. it's a hawk with night vision goggles. it's marching to the beat of a different drum. and where beauty meets brains. it's big ideas with smaller footprints. and knowing there's always more in the world to see. it's the all-new lincoln mkz.
[ male announcer ] from the way the bristles move to the way they clean, once you try an oral-b deep sweep power brush, you'll never go back to a regular manual brush. its three cleaning zones with dynamic power bristles reach between teeth with more brush movements to remove up to 100% more plaque than a regular manual brush. and even 76% more plaque than sonicare flexcare in hard to reach areas. oral-b deep sweep 5000 power brush. life opens up when you do.
budgets, debt ceilings, government shutdown, everything comes down to the way government spends its money or your money. the way it spends the money has changed drastically over the last 50 years and that is part of the problem. and entitlement programs have risen from being one-third to two-thirds of government spending since 1960s. today, about half of american households receive some kind of government benefit in the form of medicare, medicaid, social security, unemployment insurance and other transfer payments. transfer payments, that's a term that economists use to describe money that's moved by government from one taxpayer to another citizen in a way that fuels consumption. that's reason it's become all about consumption by the way. to help our economy keep moving
people have to buy the products and services that businesses provide. right now the u.s. government uses taxes to take money from people who have more it to put it in the hands of people who have less. people with lower incomes tend to spend any incremental money they get in a manner that is more beneficiarial a to the economy than rich people do, that's a fact. in the short-term, it's economically sensible to put the money in the hands of the less wealthy americans. but with an aging population and when you can't create enough jobs for people who need them, more and more money is being transferred from the rich to the poor. it's gone from millions of dollars, to trillions of dollars in the last 50 years. the government is spending less and less of its income on so-called investments and more on transfer payments for consumption. now what if we turned the clock back somehow to a time when most
tax dollars went toward investments things like infrastructure, education and research. if we invested half as much as we spend on transfer payments we have a world-class infrastructure that would bring companies and jobs back to america. fareed zakaria is the host of cnn's fareed zakaria gps, medicare, medicaid, social security, they make up more than 40% of the federal budget right now. compare that with 2% spent on education, 3% on transportation infrastructure. we're focusing a lot on older generations, i'm not making the argument that we shouldn't be. but how do we make the switch on a country that invests in the future. >> the issue is not that there's something inherently bad about what we're doing. it creates a safety net and it does have economic value. poorer people, middle clas people tend to spend more and there for fuel the economy. rich people tend to save and invest that money.
the problem is because did has become such a large share of the pie. we are not investing. not a rise in taxes, none of those issues, regulation, it has been a dramatic deficit in investment. spending on infrastructure as a percentage of gdp is down. our spending on science is down, spending on technology is down. figuring out how to rebalance this is the key. the good news is we don't need that much money for investment. we're spending trillions as you say on consumption, on transfer payments if we could move some of that money into education, science, infrastructure, it would have a big bang. >> in the context of the current debate we're having, some people focused on waste and mismanagement in government. in fact this is the bigger long-term issue. we've got an older population. an aging population. we need to somehow figure out a way to balance this out.
it's become politically charged to have this conversation. so when i say, when people say i don't want to run up bills that my grandchildren are going to end up paying. what's the best counterargument? >> i think what people have to understand is that there are two kinds of spending as you point out if you're running up a bill by building bridges, that will last 150 years, and fuel economic activity, imagine what the interstate highway system did to this country. running up bills like that borrowing money from the chinese, that's fine. because that pays off ten-fold over the long run. >> what about the argument that we don't want government making those decisions, it will just end up being pork. they'll end up giving it to their district or what a lot of republicans say, it's just code for feeding the unions. >> take a look at what infrastructure has done to the u.s. economy. take a look at how it's been built. by and large america has done pretty well on that front. if you look at the defense department and the way it has funded research, the kind of
researched that produced the internet, the odd thing about this talk about american government, is look at the stimulus bill. we have the huge stimulus bill. there haven't been many scandals associated with it. one, solyndra, which was a case where the chinese lowered the prices on their solar energy, therefore driving our guys out of business. but by and large the stuff has not been as pork-filled as people make it out to be and the crucial issue is that there's a certain amount of waste in the private sector as well. there is going to be waste. i don't pretend otherwise, what is the alternative? are we not going to modernize our energy grid or not going to modernize our air traffic control? the issue here is almost one of deferred maintenance, if you leave your boiler and it's leaking, at home, that is not fiscally prudent. one day it will explode and the bill will be much higher. when the bridges of america are starting to crumble, the bill
will be much higher and we still have to pay it. apple has sold more than 300 million of these so far. the iphone. but it's getting crushed by google and the stock price is getting hammered. has apple lost its cool? is google the new apple? eel debate it next. have to get t done as well. jackie, tell me why somebody should bring they're car here to the ford dealership for service instead of any one of those other places out there. they are going to take care of my car because this is where it came from. price is right no problem, they make you feel like you're a family. get a synthetic blend oil change, tire rotation and much more, $29.95 after $10.00 rebate. if you take care of your car your car will take care of you. you know who you are. you can part a crowd, without saying a word... if you have yet to master the quiet sneeze... you stash tissues like a squirrel stashes nuts... well muddlers, muddle no more.
do you know what this is? apple has sold more than 300 million iphones since it introduced them in 2007. but this may be less familiar. even so, google's android operating system has been krshing the iphone lately. google says one million new android devices are activated each day. han handset makers shipped 150
million of them last quarter, apple just shipped 48 million phones that operate on its operating system. google is winning the stock price well as war. in the last year google stock price is up 30%, the green line, while apple is down more than 10%. i want to bring in my good friend, richard quest for a little q&a. today's question, interpreted as broadly as you like. google or apple. in keeping with today's theme. i have a special bell you can see here. on the iphone. so control room, when i ring this, give me 60 seconds on the clock. apple is bumping into unrealistic expectations that couldn't continue forever, richard. if apple has one talent, it is showing us the next big thing before we even know we wanted it and making buckets, buckets of money on it. it's ancient history. back in the 90s, when you remember i wasn't born yet, investors had left apple for dead. the company roared back to life, brought us all sorts of things
we did not know we needed. the ipod, the iphone, itunes, history shows that all of it will probably take you know, it will gain speed again if they come up with one new product. maybe it's the apple wristwatch that will turn the doubters into believers, but at the same time apple is reaching out to budget consumers with products like the i-mad mini, that sets up for growth in places like china. meanwhile, google seems to be following apple in the innovation department. it's got plenty of products like youtube, gmail -- but the money all comes from ads i'm not sure how sustainable that is, richard. >> if the entire object of ali's diatribe was to list the products, then we're all much better informed. but we're here to talk about the share price. you have to remember a share price is the reflection of the company not only its earnings,
but investor beliefs for future growth. here it's all on the down side for apple. apple has a stench about it. nobody can quite say what or why, but there's a feeling that there's something nasty at the back of the fridge. that needs to be rooted out. google, back of the fridge that needs to be rooted out. google, on the other hand, which doesn't have that same fierce competition that apple has from android. google has competitors of its own but it still remains the industry standard on surge. it still has many core markets that it's holding on to, much tighter than apple in its own domain. the share price, i repeat, ali, is a reflection of earnings and investor sentiment. and if you look at that share price now, it's not surprising they're going, whoop, in opposite directions. >> topping $800 a share for the first time this past week.
>> and, and, and, and, and brokerage analysts suggesting it could hit 1,000. but remember, markets are not like a swiss clock. they overshoot one way, and then the other. so, look for speculation and bubbles. >> we should look -- that advice spreads to the broader market, as well. richard, always a pleasure to see you. you must say, my bell is quite nice, isn't it? all right. apple, google and facebook are rivals, but now some of the biggest names in tech are teaming up to fight disease. my interview with mark zuckerberg is next on "your money." qiñqñiñqñqxñqñqñxñqñqññ
mark zuckerberg took facebook from dorm room startup to the world's largest social network. facebook made him rich and he became a billionaire at the age of 23. zuckerberg is worth around $12 billion. he's not sitting on his money. last year, mark and his wife, priscilla chan, gave away $500 million. that makes him america's second most generous donor behind warren buffett. he's teamed up with some of the biggest names in tech like sergey brin, apple chairman art levenson, and venture capitalist yuri milner to launch is the break through prize in life sciences recognizing curing disease and extending human life.
this many week, it awarded 11 scientists $3 million each, almost three times as much as the $1.1 million nobel prize. i spoke to him and anne i spoke to him and anne wojiski, the founder of the genetics company 23 and me and the wife of google co-founder sergey brin. i asked zuckerberg why the world needs another prize. >> society has a lot of heroes for a lot of different things, but we don't have enough heroes who are scientists and researchers and engineers. these people are just doing great work. and what we're trying do is set up this institution and do what we can from the sidelines of that work to reward and recognize the amazing stuff that all these folks are doing to cure diseases and expand our understanding of humanity. and improve all these people's lives in different ways. we feel if we can recognize that work that it can inspire more folks to do similar folks, as well. >> ann, when you announced the
first round of winners, of them, i could probably col identify or recognize two or three of the things they're noted for doing. they're working on highly specific things. this isn't the 50 years later rewarding somebody for finding a cure to cancer. these are incremental improvements that are really changing people's lives. >> that's a really important distinction about this prize and what we want to the encourage. we want to encourage people to take risk, make major breakthroughs and be rewarded in the near term after that. for some of these individuals, their discoveries were recent and they've done recent things that have been really significant. we want to get people in the life sciences to actually think big, take risk and then recognize that there's a major reward that could come their way. >> how much can we extend life and how much should we in your opinion? >> you're asking questions a bit above mark. i'm not sure a lot of people in the world are above your pay grade. just saying. >> the work these folks are doing, they're each taking big risks and taking on big
projects, but each of these is a step forward for humanity. so these questions where we're going to be in 10, 20 years, they're important. but i can guarantee you that people who are sick or who might have these issues want the cures these folks are working on on building. and in order to get more of the best people and the smartest people who are going through school today to work on these problems, to help cure these diseases, i really hope that the work that we're doing here today can just be an institution. >> like the nobel prize? it's a thing? people talk about the breakthrough prize, somebody got awarded it, that's a big deal. >> this prize isn't really about the people winning it today. it's about the college and grad students are in the lab trying to figure out what they should be researching. it's about younger kids who are still trying to figure out what they want to be when this he -- they grow up. >> so you've got ann and sergei from google, art levenson from apple, chairman of apple.
you've got uri milner on this group that has financed a lot of companies that you might actually think of as competitors. this is sort of the face of the new technology. you're not all people who normally work together in business. you're kind of competitors. >> yeah, i think all these companies work together more than people think. but the big thing here is that you know, science and technology are very closely related. and when you're building these information technology companies, the market rewards you and you can make a lot of money. but a lot of folks who are doing such extraordinary work in science don't have the same opportunity, and because of that, i think it would be a shame if a lot of folks were growing up trying to figure out what they want do don't choose to go into such critical work because of that. if by having these prizes we can give incentive and can kind of make some of these folks a little more well-known as figures that some younger students want to grow up to be like, then we're doing our job here.